ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
Battersea Church Road Development | London, United Kingdom
Term 2 Design Research | Refurbishing the City Part II | March 2022
AA SED Msc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design 2021-2022
Ayushi Gupta | Ketan Naidu Kunapalli | Tanvi Patil | Deepthi Ravi
The team would like to acknowledge everyone who contributed to the completion and success of this project.
In particular, we would like to thank the tutor, Simos Yannas, whose constant guidance and input throughout the term helped accomplish the project. In addition, the team was able to further develop the project, thanks to the information and feedback by Paula Cadima, Nick Baker, Jorge Rodriguez, Gustavo Brunelli, Byron Mardas, Mariam Kapsali, Herman Calleja, and Jason Cornish.
Additionally, Deepthi Ravi would like to acknowledge the Architectural Association School of Architecture for the AA Hardship Fund she was awarded for attending the AA SED Course 2021-2023.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge the previous design projects, Collado Collins, and the Darling Associates proposals provided to us as a reference. As a result, we gained some insight to better understand and approach the project.
Battersea Church Road Development | Term 2 Design Research
11,006 words
Ayushi Gupta
Ketan Naidu Kunapalli
Tanvi Patil
Deepthi Ravi
DECLARATION
“I certify that the contents of this document are entirely my own work and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged.”
28 March 2022
This report is an outcome of the term 2 Refurbishing the City part II project of the MSc-MArch Sustainable environmental Design program, 2021-2023.
Our aim for this term was to utilize the tools and analytical knowledge taught to enhance the environmental performance of the building and its surroundings. Understanding the demographics and the context played a vital role in structuring our design, followed by an attempt to achieve thermal and visual comfort for the users. Various passive design strategies were introduced in order to reduce heating load during winters and avoid overheating during summers. One of our major objectives was to achieve Net-zero carbon buildings with a detailed analysis of factors impacting the result like the properties of materials, compactness of the units, construction cost, etc.
The site is located in the Battersea district, of Wandsworth borough, by the river Thames. The aim is to develop a housing project of affordable homes in the Battersea area. The report is structured in several parts, starting with a general overview of the site, understanding the climatic context. The report further moves into articulating a design proposal. This took into consideration the COVID situation, resulting in work from home spaces and other open green spaces for the health and well-being of the occupants. The idea was to create a strong sense of community for the people of Battersea.
The report further dives into a series of indoor and outdoor studies, which involved daylight, wind, and thermal simulations which helped mold the design, keeping in mind occupancy comfort along with increased efficiency and environmental performance of the building.
The main goal was to combine all the above aspects to create energy-efficient homes, taking into account the limitations and opportunities that the site has to offer along with our term 1 knowledge to optimize the performance of the building and create experiential spaces for the community of Battersea.
The site is situated on the south bank of River Thames in Wandsworth Borough, with an area of 5993 m2, latitude of 51.4 N, and longitude of -0.17 W. Having a varied history of social housing Battersea has a large area of public housing states dating from the 20th century.
The site connects the districts of Fulham and Chelsea (north of the river) to Clapham district (south of the site) and is accessible from the Battersea bridge road. Specifically, it is placed between Battersea Park and the riverfront and the pathway is used by the neighbours for various physical activities, with Wandsworth London borough as the local authority. Being surrounded by a mixture of high-rise structures varying from 7-21 stories in the southwest part and low-rise buildings in the northern parts, the site acts as a transitional zone between the two. Currently, the site has one-story storage blocks along with a basketball court accessed by the neighbours.
The project site is connected through the Battersea Church Road on the North, linked through major North-South arteries, namely, Battersea Bridge Road and Albert Bridge Road.
These two roads connect the Somerset Estate (SW11 3NE) to the rest of Northern London, while the other minor routes on the East and West provide comfortable pedestrian access to the site. These streets are essentially 4m wide and one-way, namely Bolingbroke Walk and Sunbury Lane. Furthermore, the site also offers direct access to River Thames on the North.
PRIMARY A ROAD | BATTERSEA BRIDGE ROAD
NON PRIMARY A ROAD | ALBERT BRIDGE ROAD
LOCAL B ROAD NETWORK
ACCESS TO RIVER THAMES
PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE LANE
CAR PARKING
BUS STOPS
BIKE PARKING
Surrounded by a mixture of high-rise buildings such as the Marsdex Apartments and Selworthy House, varying from 7-21 stories in the South-West part (figure 2.3.1) and low-rise buildings of only 2-3 stories in the Northern regions, we intend to create the site acts as a transitional zone between the two zones with a height of 40m and 12 Floors (figure 2.3.2).
Low-rise residences primarily surround the Battersea Church development with 2-3 stories along with a few high-rises residential complexes such as the Selworthy House and the Marsdex Apartments. In addition, the neighborhood consists of two primary schools, including the Somerset Nursery, Ethelburga Community Center, and the historical St. Mary's Church along the River Thames.
Most of the recently built high-rise residential buildings in the surrounding context have higher glazing ratios and balconies in order to provide suitable views of the River Thames as evident in North-Acre Residence, Marsdex Apartments and Selworthy House.
However, the predominant low-rise residences follow a more traditional scale of windows, along with few instances of glazed balconies. In addition, the material palette is primarily dictated by brick with tones of reds and browns.
The court is being currently used by the people of the surrounding neighbourhood; however, no proper provision is available to host a public gathering for the matches conducted if any.
A major part of the site is occupied by storage garages, it is the least overshadowed spot by the surrounding buildings. Adaptation of design strategies should be done in a way, where proximity to the street is not ignored pedestrian or vehicle.
As seen in the image, due to the presence of high-rise structures around the site, the views of the river are obstructed. Design strategies should be implemented in order to provide a view to future dwellers.
The park is empty and does not seem to be lively throughout the day. There is an obstruction to access the park which can be seen as a potential vital usable space if provided with well-designed urban furniture and landscape.
It was observed that this was a meeting point for the students during sun hours, around 2.30 noon, close to the bicycle and scooter parking. However, no adequate provisions like urban furniture, landscape are available for the comfort of the users.
Currently, there are recycle bins present for disposal, that can be used by the existing community. In the future design, provision of a designated waste disposal area should be maintained, that can be used not only by the site users but also for people living around.
The weather data used for the following analysis was collected from St James Park London weather station, 4.34 km away from the Battersea Church Road Development (figure 2.7.1).
St James Park weather station:
Latitude - 51’5’’
Longitude - 0’177”
The graph in figure 2.7.2 shows averages of monthly dry bulb temperatures and solar radiation classified into direct, diffuse, and global radiation throughout a year. The adaptive thermal comfort band (EN 15251) plotted for each month ranges from 19 to 26 degrees Celsius
ADAPTIVE COMFORT BAND (EN15251)
AVERAGE MEAN TEMPERATURE (0C)
GLOBAL HORIZONTAL RADIATION (Wh/m2)
DIFFUSE HORIZONTAL RADIATION (Wh/m2)
London experiences four separate seasons (figure 2.8.1); however, light rainfall and cloudy skies are prevalent throughout the year.
Additionally, the wind rose diagrams (figure 2.8.2) highlight prevailing wind direction from the West and the South-West throughout the year with an average wind speed of 5m/s, creating the possibility of uncomfortable areas through the site.
Observed climate trends in the UK are projected to continue and can be summarised as follows:
1. Warmer, Wetter Winters
2. Hotter, Drier Summers
3. Rising Sea Levels
4. Increased Extreme Weather Events
Climate Change impacts for the Built Environment:
1. COMFORT AND ENERGY PERFORMANCE | Warmer winters may reduce the need for heating, but it will be difficult to keep cool in summer (overheating) without increasing energy use and carbon emissions.
2.CONSTRUCTION | Resistance to extreme conditions, detailing and the behaviour of materials. For instance, a combination of better insulation and excessive, unprotected glazing can lead to overheating.
3.MANAGING WATER | Both too much (flooding) and too little (shortages and soil movement).
FUTURE (2100)
PRESENT (2020)
PAST (2000-2010)
In meeting the challenge of designing for a different summer climate, we needed to extend our design skills and develop innovative technologies and products. For instance:
1. SHADING SYSTEMS for both new build and the existing stock that could be progressively rolled out as circumstances change. Deciduous trees and plants can provide beautiful,effective, low-cost shade that benefits from the process of transpiration to significantly enhance its cooling effect.
2. GLAZING AND FILM TECHNOLOGIES to improve the performance of glass in terms of solar exclusion.
3. The development of REFLECTIVE SOLID MATERIALS to reflect heat off of building surfaces.
4. Secure NIGHT-TIME VENTILATION SYSTEMS to allow buildings to be purged of hot air whilst also excluding insects.
5. High levels of INTERNAL THERMAL MASS COUPLED WITH NIGHT-TIME VENTILATION to minimise heat gains through building fabric, especially in lightweight constructions.
COLLADO COLLINS ARCHITECTS
POSITIVES
• Smaller footprint providing adequate spaces to larger green areas for social interaction.
• Provides better views for maximum apartments.
• Provision of adequate natural light.
• Taking into consideration neighbourhood design requirements and concerns like preserving existing landscape, games pitch.
NEGATIVES
• Disconnection of the upper floors from the communal spaces and river front.
• Overshadowing created by the tower around the site.
• Poor relationship with existing environment in terms of fitting well with the context.
DARLING ASSOCIATES PROPOSAL
POSITIVES
• Being a Mid-rise, good connection to the central green spaces with all the apartments is seen.
• Overshadowing is prevented.
• The layout acts as a good sound barrier.
• Fits well with the surrounding context.
NEGATIVES
• 3 storey buildings do not receive the river front view.
• Building foot print reduces landscape area.
• Accessibility to the river is not efficient visually and physically.
• The building is overshadowed by surrounding tall structures.
DARLING ASSOCIATES PROPOSAL
RETAINING ABOVE PROPOSALS
• Visual and Physical Connection to River Thames
• Inclusion of Green Pockets such edible community gardens, sports fields, and winter and terrace gardens for the health and well-being of high density dwellers, optimising view to the neighbors that are being blocked by the development
• Cars and bicycles Parking and Trash Disposals for residents and the community
• Low Energy Consumption and Embodied Carbon to maintain ventilation, daylight, and thermal comfort within the apartments
• Landscape and Raising the Residential Block from the Ground as a threshold to seperate the residential and public areas
AA SED TEAM 1 DESIGN PROPOSAL (2021-22)
1. Mid-Rise Apartments
2. Dual Facing (North-South)
3. Mix of Open and Shaded Spaces
4. Linear Built Form
AA SED TEAM 2 DESIGN PROPOSAL (2021-22)
1. High-Rise Apartments
2. Climatic Orientation
3. Better views towards Thames river
4. Minimizing ground coverage
AA SED TEAM 3 DESIGN PROPOSAL (2021-22)
1. Mid-Rise Apartments
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
• Modularity as a design approach - plug and play with different building typologies
• Given the Covid-19 Pandemic, work from home has become a crucial aspect. Therefore a mix-used building with dwellings and Various Communal Spaces for the residents and community is required, promoting Social Interactions And Exchange. Shaded/Non-shaded, Public/Semi-Private, Large/Intimate
• Demographic analysed programe
• Orienation of the building, augmenting solar radiation and daylight on most facades
2. Compactness and Density in Planning
3. Formation of Building Terraces
4. Closed Atrium Spaces
5. Biodiversity - Vegetable Gardens, Green Roofs
AA SED TEAM 4 DESIGN PROPOSAL (2021-22)
1. High-Rise Apartments
2. Optimising Views
3. Connection from the river-front into the Site along the Montevetro
4. Circular Built Form (Tower)
We intend to develop a human-centered design that fosters social inclusion while taking into account the health and well-being of the residents through :
1. Vital Open Spaces such as Children's Playgrounds
2. Pedestrian-Friendly Routes and Access
3. Indigenous Flora through Communal Gardens and Green Pockets
4. Fitness Centers And Sports Fields
We further intend to take a more carbon-neutral approach through various strategies, including :
1. Orientation and Massing
2. Natural Materials
3. Sufficient Daylight
4. Provision for Planting | Vegetable Gardens
5. Waste Control
We also plan to incorporate various passive strategies throughout the project for increased thermal comfort and energy-efficient design. These include :
1. Stack Ventilation
2. Dual-facing Apartments
3. Glazing | Window to Floor Ratio
4. Modularity
5. Shading Devices such as Overhangs and Screens
6. Efficient Building Envelope
Several case studies and projects were crucial throughout the design process and in understanding the role of various elements in a residential typology.
1. NÉAUCITÉ HOUSING, FRANCE | Shared open corridors for enhanced social interactions and exchange.
2. AZATLYK, CENTRAL SQUARE OF NABEREZHNYE CHELNY, RUSSIA | Communal gardens with various urban furniture to foster social inclusion.
3. STADSTUINEN, ROTTERDAM | Segregation between the public corridor and apartments through voids that also allow for stack ventilation.
4. ROUTUTORPPA SOCIAL HOUSING, FINLAND | The glazed balconies in this project create outside rooms and give the inhabitants a chance to prolong and enjoy the outdoors during the winter period along with increased thermal comfort in the indoor spaces.
STEP 1 | The allocated site area is 5993 sqm
STEP 2 | Pedestrian flow and social interaction is enhanced through the site through various access routes, including the one towards the river, also forming the guidelines for building footprint and landscaped area
STEP 3| Introduction of parking space for building residents and neighboring occupants
STEP 4| Introduction of bin storage, playgrounds, and sports field, key to the residents' requirements
STEP 5| Ground floor commercial space to foster social exchange while maintaining the privacy of residential block zoned to upper level
STEP 6| Landscaped earth-bank noise barrier to provide views for the ground floor commercial spaces and to screen the upper stories from noise from the streets
STEP 7| Zoning of the family accommodation (2 and 3 BHK) and the student accommodation (1 BHK) along with vertical circulation
STEP 8| Addition of overhangs in the form of glazed balconies and corridors to reduce direct solar gain during the summer period
STEP 9 | Further incorporation of roof garden and communal gardens throughout the project to foster social activity and engagement
PARKING BIN STORAGE
DEPARTMENTAL STORE & CONCIERGE
BASKETBALL COURT
FITNESS CENTRE & CRECHE
CO-WORKING SPACE & CAFE
CHILDREN PLAY ZONE
3.5
3.5.1
3.5 ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
3.5.1 Floor Plans
3.5.3 Elevation
3.5 ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
3.5.3 Elevation
3.5 ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
3.5.3 Elevation
Modular constructions have been demonstrated to offer time savings of more than 50% compared to traditional structures, as well as intrinsic cost savings, and thus offers easy upgrade goods in the future and can reuse/recycle materials; more sustainable and can accommodate changing layouts.
Fig 3.6.1.1 shows the basic module of 18sqm, which is added with other basic modules to form a One-Bedroom basic dwelling unit of 36 sqm and similarly with a two-bedroom dwelling unit of 54 sqm and three-bedroom dwelling unit of 72 sqm called Type A Units
Modular construction has been explored further by addition of a double height spaces in the unit. Fig 3.6.1.2 shows the basic module of 18sqm with a double height, which is formed by the addition of other basic modules to form a OneBedroom basic dwelling and a unit of 36 sqm, and a two-bedroom as a double height dwelling of 54 sqm and three-bedroom dwelling unit of 72 sqm with a double height, named as Type B units. These three-bedroom units not only provide a double height living room, but also have bedrooms in the higher floor.
The one bedroom unit is designed as starter homes for couples and students, which can accommodate up to 2 people comfortably.
Fig 3.6.2.3 shows the unit typology oriented in the NE-SW direction which has an open-plan kitchen/ living room with a balcony and a bedroom. The bedroom can be opened up to the living room through the foldable door and hence can form a larger studio.
We further formed two typologies of the unit for ease of choice for the occupant, as follows:
Type A | 33 Single-Height Living Dwelling Unit
Type B | 8 Double-Height Living Dwelling Unit
Floor Area | 36 sqm
Balcony Area | 4 sqm
The two-bedroom unit is designed for couples and families, which can accommodate up to 4 people comfortably.
Fig 3.6.3.3 shows the unit typology oriented in the NW-SE direction which has an open-plan kitchen/ living room with a balcony and two bedrooms.
We further formed two typologies of the unit for ease of choice for the occupant, as follows:
Type A | 26 Single-Height Living Dwelling Unit
Type B | 13 Double-Height Living Dwelling Unit
Floor Area | 54 sqm
Balcony Area | 4 sqm
The two-bedroom unit is designed for couples and families, which can accommodate up to 6 people comfortably.
Fig 3.6.4.3 shows the unit typology oriented in the NW-SE direction which has an open-plan kitchen/ living room with a balcony and three bedrooms. We further formed two typologies of the unit for ease of choice for the occupant, as follows:
Type A | 8 Single-Height Living Dwelling Unit
Type B | 2 Double-Height Living Dwelling Unit
Floor Area | 72 sqm
Balcony Area | 4 sqm
The two-bedroom unit is designed for couples and families, which can accommodate up to 6 people comfortably.
Fig 3.6.4.3 shows the unit typology oriented in the NW-SE direction which has an open-plan kitchen/ living room with a balcony and three bedrooms. We further formed two typologies of the unit for ease of choice for the occupant, as follows:
Type A | 8 Single-Height Living Dwelling Unit
Type B | 2 Double-Height Living Dwelling Unit
Floor Area | 72 sqm
Balcony Area | 4 sqm
The WFR (Window Floor Ratio) on the South-East and South-West facade is 20% with three variations in the window sizes depicted in Fig 3.7.1 as B, C, and D. This enhances the thermal performance during summers well as winters. In NorthWest and North-East facade, the WFR is achieved to have less ratio of 5% as per the functions in the unit oriented towards the facade and is depicted as A in Fig.3.7.1. These sizes and placements of the windows as per the orientation help minimize heat loss.
Orientation | North-West and North-East Glazing Property | Double-Glazing Unit (U-value 1.1 W/m2K) WFR | 5% and WWR | 5.8%
Orientation | South-East and South-West Glazing Property | Double-Glazing Unit (U-value 1.1 W/m2K) WFR | 20% and WWR | 34%
Fig 3.7.2 shows the sun angles during the specified period, which helped us derive the balcony's overhang depth. The balcony can be treated as a conservatory for an improved thermal performance in winter.
Fig 3.7.1 shows the one bedroom dwelling units and the function of the glazing in the balcony during the summers and winters.
1. Summer
During summer, the sun's rays heat the glazed surface of the balcony, warming the air if closed. Therefore, for better comfort, the glazed balcony surface is retracted, creating openess in the balcony. Since, people open their windows more often for natural ventilation in summers, the adaptive nature of the balcony provides enhanced comfort.
2. Winter
On the other hand, in winter, the sun's rays heat the glazed surface of the balcony, warming the air and limiting heat loss from the dwelling. Hence, improving the thermal comfort.
Orientation | South-East and South-West Glazing Property | Single-Glazing Unit (U-value 1.4 W/m2K) SUMMER ADAPTIVE OPPORTUNITY | OPEN BALCONY
Orientation | South-East and South-West Glazing Property | Single-Glazing Unit (U-value 1.4 W/m2K) WINTER | CONSERVATORY
One of the potential materials considered for the design proposal is Cross Laminated Timber for its versatility, structural rigidity, sustainability, and strength. In addition, the aim is to avoid thermal bridging and have flexibility in modular construction.Additionally, Glued Laminated Timber has been considered for the post and beam superstructure, while reinforced concrete is considered for the core and substructure.
Fig 3.8.3 shows the material for substructure and core (Reinforced concrete), Walls (Cross Laminated Timber), post and beams(Glued Laminated Timber).
Fig 3.8.4 shows the potential of cross-laminated timber in terms of span and height. It can span up to 8m and go up to 40m in height.
Further, to understand the details of construction, Fig 3.8.2 shows the various layers in the material for the wall with a U-value of 0.13 W/m2K, floor with a U-value of 0.21 W/m2K, and glue-laminated sub-structure with a U-value of 0.13 W/m2K. These U-values are in line with the LETI Climate Emergency Standards. Additionally, Fig 3.8.1 depicts the joinery detail of the cross laminated timber between the exposed wall and the floor. This helps to avoid thermal bridging and allows flexibility in modular construction.
FLOORING DETAIL
CLT (U-value 0.21 W/m K)
Carbon emmision: -600 KgCO2e Carbon capture: 110 Kg CO2/m3
Timber flooring finish
Under floor heating
25mm Dry screed
12mm Recycled rubber sound absorption layer
60mm flooring grade rigid wood fibre insulation
Breathable floor protection membrane
130mm(5 layer) crosslam timber panel
GLUED LAMINATED TIMBER
(U-value 0.13 W/m2K)
CLT Insulation
CLT with cavity and insulation (U-value 0.13 W/m2K)
Plaster lining board
WALL DETAIL 60 x 60mm counter battens
Timber studs
160 renewable insulation between studs 60mm render compatible wood fibre insulation
Lime render
A material study was conducted on the building materials chosen to deduce the potential carbon footprint of the materials. The performance of Embodied carbon was studied with soft computation over FCBS Carbon Calculator. The study takes into account the carbon footprint of each and every material used within the project in various components of the building within its lifespan, with their respective volumetric quantity in cubic meters and how much each contributes to the saving of CO2. Alongside the material specifications at various stages of the building construction as shown in Fig. 3.9.1, the computational inputs provided for the study are as follows:
Glazing ratio: 25%
Storeys above ground: 12
Floor to floor height: 3
Grid size: 6m
Building width: 10m
Building footprint: 520 m2
Building perimeter: 116 m2
Gross Internal Area: 5730m2
The computation results follows estimate of life cycle embodied carbon and biogenic carbon of various materials used in the components of the building. This study was conducted to give an idea of how the materials in themselves can help achieve carbon zero.
Fig 3.9.2 depicts a typical 3 BHK unit in the building colour coded with the components of the building component’s materials in Fig 3.9.1. Additionally, Fig 3.9.3 depicts the life cycle embodied carbon within the different components of the building as a representative of the entire building’s proposal.
With these details at hand, it is estimated from the various stages of life cycle carbon considered from the LETI standards, carbon footprints are as follows:
Embodied carbon to practical completion A1- A5: 354 kgCO2e/m2
Embodied carbon over the life cycle A1- A5, B1- B5, C1- C4: 517 kgCO2e/m2
Whole life carbon A, B, C module: 1292 kgCO2e/m2
The intense use of wood in CLT and Glulam and minimal use of RC only for the core structure helps in achieving a low carbon footprint for the project.
In order to analyse the performance in comparison to the other techniques of construction, a comparative analysis of the embodied carbon was generated over two cases.
Case 1: A complete Reinforced Concrete Structure
Case 2: A CLT Structure with a Reinforced Concrete Core (Hybrid)
Fig.3.9.4 and Fig 3.9.6 depict the distribution of embodied carbon in various components of the building in Case 1 and Case 2 respectively. Case 2 which is as per the proposal mentioned earlier is a CLT construction and hence has the biogenic carbon storage. Timber as a material, throughout its life as a tree, is been capturing and absorbing carbon, allowing the total embodied carbon including sequestration, to be about 110 kgCO2e/m2 in the building proposed for the project.
Furthermore, the total embodied carbon irrespective of sequestration in the materials proposed for the building design is 517 kgCO2e/m2 which is yet lower than that of a building constructed completely from reinforced concrete which is 835 kgCO2e/m2. As per the targets for RIBA 2030 challenge, Case-1 proposal for the building is at a pre-2020 standard as depicted in Fig.3.9.5 and Case-2 proposal for the building stands at the current 2020 targets as depicted in Fig.3.9.7, yet providing potential for better when considered with sequestration of timber.
This is the benefit in carbon counting, as it gets subtracted from the rest of A1A3 as shown in the comparison graph in Fig. 3.9.8, where Case 2 has a smaller carbon footprint at the start of the life, as it already holds a large amount of carbon through its growing process. The graph helps in understanding that throughout the various stages of the carbon life-cycle as well, the case 2 proposal for the building proposes a low carbon footprint.
835 kgCO2e/m2
824 kgCO2e/m2
Carbon emissions for the Proposed Materials (Case 2)
Carbon emissions for the Construction completely with Reinforced Concrete (Case 1)
Figure 3.9.4
Carbon Distribution over Different Components of the Building, if constructed completely with Reinforced Concrete (Source | FCBS Carbon Calculator)
Total
Carbon: 517 kgCO2e/m2 Total Including Sequestration: 110 kgCO2e/m2
Figure 3.9.7 Case2: Targets as per the RIBA 2030 challenge constructed as per materials proposed (Source | FCBS Carbon Calculator)
Passive Design Strategies have been incorporated in the building design in multiple methods through the building envelope.
Cross Ventilation
The narrow building and the unit depth ensure cross-ventilation across all the units. In addition, the corridors and the balconies are opened up for good ventilation to prevent molding and stale air to enhance good occupant health.
Stack Ventilation
Double height units at certain building positions allow stack ventilation in the units allowing the lighter hot air to rise and the cool air to settle in the bottom. This strategy is also incorporated in the voids between the corridor and the unit, providing good ventilation and enhancement of occupant health.
Solar Access
Balconies are designed such that the sun enters units at all times of the year, however preventing excessive heat gain. Natural light is received from either side of the unit providing the occupant with good daylighting.
Terrace
The sports courts, co-working spaces, and communal gardens encourage the occupants to stay lively and promote the community feeling among all the residents of the spaces. Furthermore, the social, collaborative activities in the indoor amenities promote interaction irrespective of the outdoor weather.
Rain-Water Harvesting
The amount of precipitation throughout the year in London climate provides a potential for water storage, allowing re-use of the recycled water in communal and terrace gardens.
Solar Panels
The potential for London to generate more electricity from solar energy is explored with the capture of the sun's energy in solar panels on the terrace.
RAIN WATER
Rainfall amounts to 615 millimeters per year as per climate sources, and the perception as a rainy city is expected mainly to the frequency of the rains, which can occur quite often also in summer. Therefore, it is beneficial to use the roof surface of the building to collect the rainwater. The roofs can collect all the water needed for the inhabitant's uses (excluding drinking water) and the green spaces of the projects, which are the winter garden and communal gardens. As shown in the calculation the total area of 840 m2 of roof surfaces can collect 3,47,760 liters per year.
SOLAR ENERGY
It is clear that London has the potential to generate more electricity from solar energy. Solar electricity panels, also known as photovoltaics (PV), capture the
Annual Precipitation in London | 690 mm
(Source | https://en.climate-data.org/europe/united-kingdom england/london-1)
Flow coefficient | Flat Roof : 0.6
Rain Water Volume = Surface Area (m2) x Flow Coefficient x Precipitation per Year (mm) = 840 m2 x 0.6 x 690 mm
= 3,47,760 liters per year
Rated Capacity’ or ‘Rated Output’, this is taken to be 1,000 watts (or 1 kW) of sunlight for every square metre of panel. Residential Panels have an efficiency of around 20%. The number of sun hours varies greatly throughout the year (6 hours is an estimate for July)
Project Roof Area | 840 sqm
1 Solar PV Panel (250W) for every 1.6 sqm
500 Solar PV Panel (250W) for 840 sqm
Solar Panels Output
= Size of solar panel (in square metres) x 1,000 W
1.6 x 1000 = 1600 W
=That figure x Efficiency of one solar panel (percentage as a decimal)
1600 x 0.2 = 320 W
=That figure x Number of sun hours in your area each day
320 x 6 = 1920 Wh (1.92 KWh per day)
=Number of panels x Energy per day(KWh)
500 x 1.92 = 960 KWh per day
Based on the analysis from the stereographic chart of the sun path diagram (Fig.4.1.1.1) and understanding the various neighbouring buildings, the computational analysis as observed in Fig 4.1.1.2 depicts that the site is overshadowed largely by the high-rise residential tower on the South-East, Selworthy House through most part of the year and to some extent by the residential blocks on the south-west during the months of winter.
Based on the analysis from the stereographic chart of the sun path diagram (Fig.4.1.1.1) and understanding the various neighbouring buildings, the computational analysis as observed in Fig 4.1.1.2 depicts that the site is overshadowed largely by the high-rise residential tower on the South-East, Selworthy House through most part of the year and to some extent by the residential blocks on the south-west during the months of winter.
The solar radiation analysis on the facade of the building was performed by using the Grasshopper (Ladybug) plug-in software in Rhino 3D. Based on the latitude and the orientation of the building, it is the South-East and South-West facade that receives the biggest part of the solar radiation and daylight throughout the year.
In order to maximize solar gain on the North facade, iterations were considered with experimentation with change in form and positioning of the blocks as depicted in Fig 4.2.1. Form 1 design iteration is considered with one bedroom unit block is placed on the south west. Form 2 is considered with the one bed room unit on the south east and form 3 was iterated with a change in the angle of the two bedroom unit block. Form 3 proves to the be the most optimized solution as it provides 13% higher solar radiation in comparision. The thermal simulation of units in the blocks, provides savings of 8% in annual heating demand in comparision to form 2 as depicted in Fig. 4.2.2 and 34% of the same in comparision with form 1 as depicted in Fig 4.2.3
An annual sunlight radiation analysis was performed on the developed form, as depicted in Fig. 4.2.4, Fig 4.2.5, Fig 4.2.6 and Fig 4.2.7. In Summer Period from May to August, there is a 45% reduction in Solar Gains due to the overhangs while in the Winter Period, there is minimal change of 12%. This is potentially due to the varying solar angles in both seasons.
Wind simulations were carried out using Autodesk CFD software to visualize wind patterns and the airflow generated by the design proposal and on the surrounding buildings to ensure no severe wind disturbances were created. Based on data obtained by Central London Weather Station, the prevailing wind direction was set to Southwest, and the site has a major obstruction from the Selworthy tower. The study was conducted at three levels, the ground floor at Lvl +5m, the fifth floor at Lvl +18m, and the tenth floor at Lvl +33m, as depicted in Fig.4.3.2. Iterations were performed to conclude at the most optimum design decision for positioning the building blocks as discussed previously. The form of the buildings channels the strong Southwest wind from high-rise Selworthy Building to north and west directions, which gets stronger at certain curvatures. This influence diminishes, slowing down the wind at the inner parts of the site.
As observed from Fig 4.3.2, the wind velocity is reduced further when the design proposal is in alignment with the Selworthy house as it behaves as a wind barrier. Hence, form 3 provides higher occupant comfort. First, on the pedestrian level at Lvl +5m, the wind analysis was conducted to understand how to organize the exterior spaces and confirm the building shapes. Then, the wind speeds were calculated at Lvl +18m, where the communal spaces are present. However, due to the change in angle in Form 3, there is a reduction in the wind speeds making it more comfortable. Finally, on top of the tower, at level +33m, as there is a 360° terrace above, the wind velocity can become an issue.
By using the Grasshopper(Ladybug) plug-in software in Rhino 3D, a comfort analysis was performed for the site at ground level at every stage of the development on site. The study was conducted for a typical week in the summer and winter. It was observed that the occupants would experience a larger comfort in the summer (80-100%), rather than winter (50-60%). It is evident from Fig.4.4.1.1 that the addition of the building proposal on site and the landscaped mounds at the ground level help in provision of a higher comfort in the public open spaces on the design proposal on ground level.
TYPICAL SUMMER WEEK
8th-14th July
TYPICAL WINTER WEEK
1st - 8th March
By using the Grasshopper(Ladybug) plug-in software in Rhino 3D, a comfort analysis was performed for the site at ground level at every stage of the development on site. The study was conducted for a typical week in the summer and winter. It was observed that the occupants would experience a larger comfort in the summer (80-100%), rather than winter (50-60%). It is evident from Fig.4.4.1.1 that the addition of the building proposal on site and the landscaped mounds at the ground level help in provision of a higher comfort in the public open spaces on the design proposal on ground level.
In order to understand the penetration of daylight on the communal gardens present at the various levels of the building in different widths and heights, computational analysis was performed for Summer Solstice and Winter Solstice at 12 00 as depicted in Fig 4.5.1.1 and Fig 4.5.1.2 respectively. The sizes of the voids dedicated for the communal gardens range from 3m x 3m to 6m x 6m. It is observed that the illuminance levels range from 3000 - 4500 lux during the summer months and that in winter ranges from 1000-3000 lux. These illuminance levels are adequate for performing activities in an outdoor space.
To study the illuminance levels obtained for all the dwellings in the design proposal, a series of computational analyses were carried out using parametric tools on Grasshopper using Radiance plug-in. Based on the resources obtained from the Wandsworth Borough Coucil regarding daylight, the minimum Annual daylight factors necessary in a dwelling are as follows:
Living Room - 1.5%
2%
1%
The study was performed for the dwellings on level 5 and level 10 in order to conclude the difference in daylight based on dwelling height. The following factors were provided as inputs for carrying out the analysis
Windows
Double Glazed | Visual Trasmittance : 0.70
Balcony
Single Glazed | Visual Transmittance: 0.89
Walls
CLT With Plaster Finish | Reflectance: 0.8
Floor And Ceiling
CLT | Reflectance: 0.3
Doors And Frames
Timber Finish| Reflectance: 0.3
Fig 5.1.1.1 depicts the Annual Daylight Factor received by the dwellings on Level 5 of the building. The block facing North-West and South-East receives the recommended minimum daylight factors in the range from 1-3% in the dwelling's spaces. However, the 1 BHK dwellings facing North-East and SouthWest direction have a daylight factor of around 1%.
Fig 5.1.1.2 depicts the Annual Daylight Factor received by the dwellings on Level 10 of the building which is comparitively higher than that of the lower levels. The block facing North-West and South-East receives the daylight factors in the range from 2-4% in the dwelling's spaces. However, the 1 BHK dwellings facing NorthEast and South-West direction have a daylight factor of around 3-5%.
The dwellings which consist a living room of a double height receive larger daylight due to larger number of fenestrations on the facade.
Digital simulations were further carried forward to understand the useful daylight illuminance in the space annually. The percentage of daylight received annually in the useful range from 100-2000 lux with consideration of glare and without the need for the use of artifical lighting during the day is accounted for in the analysis. The results observed are depicted in Fig.5.1.2.1 and Fig.5.1.2.2 for the 5th and the 10th floor respectively.
The percentage of useful daylight ranges from about 75-80% annually in the dwellings on the 5th floor and that on the 10th floor ranges from 60-80%. This adequacy in the amount of useful daylight illuminance allows the occupant to experience visual comfort throughout the year.
Daylight analysis in terms of illuminance on a grid was carried out for the winter solstice at 12 00pm for a one bed room unit oriented north-east and south-west as depicted in Fig 5.1.3.1 and Fig.5.1.3.2 in various iterations to analyse the best performance. This study was carried out for units in the 5th and the 10th floor as depicted in Fig 5.1.3.3.
Fig 5.1.3.4 depicts a unit without a glazed balcony and the illuminance levels for the same in the 5th and 10th floor are depicted in Fig 5.1.3.5 and Fig 5.1.3.6. Fig 5.1.3.7 and Fig 5.1.3.10 depict a one bed room unit with a glazed balcony in a single height and double height respectively. The illuminance levels of the same are followed by in Fig.5.1.3.8 and Fig.5.1.3.9 for the single height glazed balcony unit in the 5th and 10th floor and in Fig.5.1.3.11 and Fig.5.1.3.12 for a double height unit with a glazed balcony in the 5th and 10th floor respectively.
The recommendations for minimum illuminance levels from the CIBSE 2008 Consise Handbook are as follows- Bed Room: 100 lux, Living Room: 50-300 lux, Kitchen: 150-300 lux. The performance of a unit with a double height living room is higher, as it receives larger illuminance levels when compared to a single height unit. Yet, due to the adaptive nature of the glazing in the balcony, it can be opened up to receive larger ulluminance levels. However, all spaces of the dwelling at all times receive the recommended illuminance as depicted in the figures.
Figure 5.1.3.4 One Bedroom Unit Without a Glazed Balcony
Figure 5.1.3.7 One Bedroom Unit With a Glazed Balcony
Figure 5.1.3.10 One Bedroom Unit (Double Height) With a Glazed Balcony
Figure 5.1.3.5 Illuminance on Grid at 12 00 Without a Glazed Balcony Fifth Floor (Source | Radiance)
Figure 5.1.3.3 Key Section
Figure 5.1.3.8 Illuminance on Grid at 12 00 With a Glazed Balcony Fifth Floor (Source | Radiance)
Figure 5.1.3.11 Illuminance on Grid at 12 00 Double Height- With a Glazed Balcony Fifth Floor (Source | Radiance)
Figure 5.1.3.6 Illuminance on Grid at 12 00 Without a Glazed Balcony Tenth Floor (Source | Radiance)
Figure 5.1.3.9 Illuminance on Grid at 12 00 With a Glazed Balcony Tenth Floor (Source | Radiance)
Figure 5.1.3.12 Illuminance on Grid at 12 00 Double Height- With a Glazed Balcony Tenth Floor (Source | Radiance)
Daylight analysis in terms of illuminance on a grid was carried out for the summer solstice at 12 00pm for a one bed room unit oriented north-east and south-west as depicted in Fig 5.1.4.1 and Fig.5.1.4.2 in various iterations to analyse the best performance. This study was carried out for units in the 5th and the 10th floor as depicted in Fig 5.1.4.3.
Fig 5.1.4.4 and Fig 5.1.4.7 depict a one bed room unit with a glazed balcony in a single height and double height respectively. The illuminance levels of the same are followed by in Fig.5.1.4.5 and Fig.5.1.3.6 for the single height glazed balcony unit in the 5th and 10th floor and in Fig.5.1.4.8 and Fig.5.1.4.9 for a double height unit with a glazed balcony in the 5th and 10th floor respectively. The recommendations for minimum illuminance levels from the CIBSE 2008 Consise Handbook are as follows- Bed Room: 100 lux, Living Room: 50-300 lux, Kitchen: 150-300 lux. The performance of a unit with a double height living room is higher, as it receives larger illuminance levels when compared to a single height unit. However, all spaces of the dwelling at all times receive the recommended illuminance as depicted in the figures.
Daylight analysis in terms of illuminance on a grid was carried out for the winter solstice at 12 00pm for a two bed room unit oriented north-west and south-east as depicted in Fig 5.1.5.1 and Fig.5.1.5.2 in various iterations to analyse the best performance. This study was carried out for units in the 5th and the 10th floor as depicted in Fig 5.1.5.3.
Fig 5.1.5.4 depicts a unit without a glazed balcony and the illuminance levels for the same in the 5th and 10th floor are depicted in Fig 5.1.5.5 and Fig 5.1.5.6. Fig 5.1.5.7 and Fig 5.1.5.10 depict a one bed room unit with a glazed balcony in a single height and double height respectively. The illuminance levels of the same are followed by in Fig.5.1.5.8 and Fig.5.1.5.9 for the single height glazed balcony unit in the 5th and 10th floor and in Fig.5.1.5.11 and Fig.5.1.5.12 for a double height unit with a glazed balcony in the 5th and 10th floor respectively.
The recommendations for minimum illuminance levels from the CIBSE 2008 Consise Handbook are as follows- Bed Room: 100 lux, Living Room: 50-300 lux, Kitchen: 150-300 lux. The performance of a unit with a double height living room is higher, as it receives larger illuminance levels when compared to a single height unit. Yet, due to the adaptive nature of the glazing in the balcony, it can be opened up to receive larger illuminance levels. However, all spaces of the dwelling at all times receive the recommended illuminance as depicted in the figures.
Daylight analysis in terms of illuminance on a grid was carried out for the summer solstice at 12 00pm for a one bed room unit oriented north-west and south-east as depicted in Fig 5.1.6.1 and Fig.5.1.6.2 in various iterations to analyse the best performance. This study was carried out for units in the 5th and the 10th floor as depicted in Fig 5.1.6.3.
Fig 5.1.6.4 and Fig 5.1.6.7 depict a two bed room unit with a glazed balcony in a single height and double height respectively. The illuminance levels of the same are followed by in Fig.5.1.6.5 and Fig.5.1.6.6 for the single height glazed balcony unit in the 5th and 10th floor and in Fig.5.1.6.8 and Fig.5.1.6.9 for a double height unit with a glazed balcony in the 5th and 10th floor respectively. The recommendations for minimum illuminance levels from the CIBSE 2008 Consise Handbook are as follows- Bed Room: 100 lux, Living Room: 50-300 lux, Kitchen: 150-300 lux. The performance of a unit with a double height living room is higher, as it receives larger illuminance levels when compared to a single height unit. However, all spaces of the dwelling at all times receive the recommended illuminance as depicted in the figures.
Daylight analysis in terms of illuminance on a grid was carried out for the winter solstice at 12 00pm for a three bed room unit oriented north-west and south-east as depicted in Fig 5.1.7.1 in various iterations to analyse the best performance. This study was carried out for a unit in the 10th floor.
Fig 5.1.7.2 depicts a unit without a glazed balcony and the illuminance levels for the same are depicted in Fig 5.1.7.3. Fig 5.1.7.4 and Fig 5.1.7.6 depict a three bed room unit with a glazed balcony in a single height and double height respectively. The illuminance levels of the same are followed by in Fig.5.1.7.5 for the single height glazed balcony unit and in Fig.5.1.7.7 for a double height unit with a glazed balcony.
The recommendations for minimum illuminance levels from the CIBSE 2008 Consise Handbook are as follows- Bed Room: 100 lux, Living Room: 50-300 lux, Kitchen: 150-300 lux. The performance of a unit with a double height living room is higher, as it receives larger illuminance levels when compared to a single height unit. Yet, due to the adaptive nature of the glazing in the balcony, it can be opened up to receive larger ulluminance levels. However, all spaces of the dwelling at all times receive the recommended illuminance as depicted in the figures.
Daylight analysis in terms of illuminance on a grid was carried out for the summer solstice at 12 00pm for a three bed room unit oriented north-west and south-east as depicted in Fig 5.1.8.1 in various iterations to analyse the best performance. This study was carried out for a unit in the 10th floor.
Fig 5.1.8.2 and Fig 5.1.8.4 depict a three bed room unit with a glazed balcony in a single height and double height respectively. The illuminance levels of the same are followed by in Fig.5.1.8.3 for the single height glazed balcony and in Fig.5.1.8.5 for a double height unit with a glazed balcony.
The recommendations for minimum illuminance levels from the CIBSE 2008 Consise Handbook are as follows- Bed Room: 100 lux, Living Room: 50-300 lux, Kitchen: 150-300 lux. The performance of a unit with a double height living room is higher, as it receives larger illuminance levels when compared to a single height unit. However, all spaces of the dwelling at all times receive the recommended illuminance as depicted in the figures.
Figure 5.2.1.1 shows the annual hourly mean indoor temperatures predicted for the 1- bedroom apartment. The following simulations indicate the months of the year that are underheated and would require strategies to achieve comfort temperatures that are ranging from 19 to 25 degrees for the winter and 21 to 27 degrees for the summer. Figure 5.2.1.2 shows the annual heat gains and losses by different parameters involved.
The bedroom chosen for the simulation was at a height of 18 meters from the ground level and it was observed that there is a minimal difference of 0.50C to 10C with the indoor temperatures for the apartments at the topmost floor.
As seen in the previous graph, figure 5.2.2.1 shows the indoor temperatures of the one-bedroom unit, however, it is observed that without the presence of a glazed balcony during this time there is a decrease in temperature by 20C due to the heat loss from the exposed rooms. Figure 5.2.2.2 shows heat gains and losses through different parameters involved in the process.
Typical Winter Week (Heating and Night Shutters)
Figure 5.2.3.1 shows hourly indoor temperatures for a typical winter week dated from 1st to 7th march. It is observed that for a maximum outdoor temperature of 90C the temperature fluctuations for the glazed balcony are reaching up to 260C on one of the days in the week. This is due to the orientation of the onebedroom apartment blocks. It is also observed the indoor temperatures of the living and bedroom are significantly lower than the comfort zone temperatures, which would be improved with further iterations to the design strategies.
Figure 5.2.3.2 shows the heat gains and losses by different parameters involved. It is observed the maximum gains to losses is through windows, which cover 20% of the window to floor area.
Figure 5.2.4.1 shows the graph depicting hourly indoor temperatures for a typical winter week. After looking through various iterations, a solution case was developed, which involved the unit having retractable balconies along with night shutters and blinds of 40% transmittance which helped decrease the heating load to a significant 30% than the base case heating load. Although heating was introduced, the different parameters like the night shutters schedules, occupancy patterns, the relation of the outdoor temperature with the indoor helped reduce the heating load to 0.05 KWh/m2 Annual heat gains and losses from different parameters for this case can be seen in figure 5.2.4.2.
Figure 5.2.5.1 shows hourly indoor temperatures for a typical summer week dated from 7th – 13th July. It is observed that in the presence of a glazed balcony the temperatures on a free-running mode are well within the comfort band. However, the whole idea is to have adaptive strategies and these balconies are designed for the user’s benefit, and the occupant can choose whether or not to open the balcony according to the changing outdoor conditions. Figure 5.2.5.2 shows the various heat losses and gains through different parameters involved in the process.
Figure 5.2.6.1 shows hourly indoor temperatures for a typical summer week. It is observed that in the absence of a glazed balcony the temperatures on a free-running mode are well within the comfort band but significantly lower than that of the previous case. However, the whole idea is to have adaptive strategies and these balconies are designed for the user’s benefit, and the occupant can choose whether or not to open the balcony according to the changing outdoor conditions. Figure 5.2.6.2 shows the various heat losses and gains through different parameters involved in the process.
Figure 5.3.1.1 shows the annual hourly mean indoor temperatures predicted for the two bedroom apartment. The following simulations indicate the months of the year that are underheated and would require strategies to achieve comfort temperatures that are ranging from 19 to 25 degrees for the winter and 21 to 27 degrees for the summer. Figure 5.3.1.2 shows the annual heat gains and losses by different parameters involved in the process. The bedroom chosen for the simulation was at a height of 18 meters from the ground level and it was observed that there is a minimal difference of 0.50C to 10C with the indoor temperatures for the apartments at the topmost floor.
SECTION 02
Figure 5.3.2.1 shows the indoor temperatures of the two-bedroom unit, however, it is observed that without the presence of a glazed balcony during this time there is a decrease in temperature by 20C due to the heat loss from the exposed rooms. Figure 5.3.2.2 shows heat gains and losses through different parameters involved in the process.
With glazing with heating Single glazed balcony and double glazed + shutters
Figure 5.3.3.1 shows hourly indoor temperatures for a typical winter week dated from 1st to 7th march. It is observed that for a maximum outdoor temperature of 90C the temperature fluctuations for the glazed balcony are reaching up to 240C on one of the days in the week. This is due to the orientation of the twobedroom apartment blocks. It is also observed the indoor temperatures of the living and bedrooms are significantly lower than the comfort zone temperatures, which would be improved with further iterations to the design strategies. Figure 5.3.3.2 shows the heat gains and losses by different parameters involved. It is observed the maximum gains to losses is through windows, which cover 20% of the window to floor area.
With glazing with heating Single glazed balcony and double glazed + shutters
Figure 5.3.4.1 shows the graph depicting hourly indoor temperatures for a typical winter week. After looking through various iterations, a solution case was developed, which involved the unit having retractable balconies along with night shutters and blinds of 40% transmittance which helped decrease the heating load to a significant 30% than the base case heating load.
Although heating was introduced, the different parameters like the night shutters schedules, occupancy patterns, the relation of the outdoor temperature with the indoor helped reduce the heating load to 0.58 KWh/m2. Annual heat gains and losses from different parameters for this case can be seen in figure 5.3.4.2.
Figure 5.3.5.1 shows hourly indoor temperatures for a typical summer week dated from 7th – 13th July. It is observed that in the presence of a glazed balcony the temperatures on a free-running mode are well within the comfort band. However, the whole idea is to have adaptive strategies and these balconies are designed for the user’s benefit, and the occupant can choose whether or not to open the balcony according to the changing outdoor conditions. Figure 5.3.5.2 shows the various heat losses and gains through different parameters involved in the process.
Figure 5.3.6.1 shows hourly indoor temperatures for a typical summer week. It is observed that in the absence of a glazed balcony the temperatures on a freerunning mode are well within the comfort band but significantly more stable than that of the previous case. However, the whole idea is to have adaptive strategies and these balconies are designed for the user’s benefit, and the occupant can choose whether or not to open the balcony according to the changing outdoor conditions. Figure 5.3.6.2 shows the various heat losses and gains through different parameters involved in the process.
Summer- Not glazed free running
Figure 5.4.1.1 shows the annual hourly mean indoor temperatures predicted for the two bedroom apartment. The following simulations indicate the months of the year that are underheated and would require strategies to achieve comfort temperatures that are ranging from 19 to 25 degrees for the winter and 21 to 27 degrees for the summer. Figure 5.4.1.2 shows the annual heat gains and losses by different parameters involved. The bedroom chosen for the simulation was at a height of 18 meters from the ground level and it was observed that there is a minimal difference of 0.50C to 10C with the indoor temperatures for the apartments at the topmost floor.
Figure 5.4.2.1 shows the indoor temperatures of the three bedroom unit, however, it is observed that without the presence of a glazed balcony during this time there is a decrease in temperature by 20C due to the heat loss from the exposed rooms. Figure 5.4.2.2 shows heat gains and losses through different parameters involved in the process.
Figure 5.4.3.1 shows hourly indoor temperatures for a typical winter week dated from 1st to 7th march for three bedroom apartment. It is observed that for a maximum outdoor temperature of 90C the temperature fluctuations for the glazed balcony are reaching up to 170C on one of the days in the week. It is also observed the indoor temperatures of the living and bedrooms are significantly lower than the comfort zone temperatures, which would be improved with further iterations to the design strategies. Figure 5.4.3.2 shows the heat gains and losses by different parameters involved. It is observed the maximum gains to losses is through windows, which cover 20% of the window to floor area.
Figure 5.4.4.1 shows the indoor temperatures of the three bedroom unit, however it is observed that there is a decrease of all the operative temperatures by 0.5 to 1 degree due to the variations in height of the unit from the ground level. Figure 5.4.4.2 shows heat gains and losses through different parameters involved in the process.
Figure 5.4.5.1 shows the graph depicting hourly indoor temperatures for a typical winter week. After looking through various iterations, a solution case was developed, which involved the unit having retractable balconies along with night shutters and blinds of 40% transmittance which helped decrease the heating load to a significant 30% than the base case heating load. Although heating was introduced, the different parameters like the night shutters schedules, occupancy patterns, the relation of the outdoor temperature with the indoor helped reduce the heating load to 0.16 KWh/m2 Annual heat gains and losses from different parameters for this case can be seen in figure 5.4.5.2.
Figure 5.4.6.1 shows hourly indoor temperatures for a typical summer week dated from 7th – 13th July. It is observed that in the presence of a glazed balcony the temperatures on a free-running mode are well within the comfort band. However, the whole idea is to have adaptive strategies and these balconies are designed for the user’s benefit, and the occupant can choose whether or not to open the balcony according to the changing outdoor conditions. Figure 5.4.6.2 shows the various heat losses and gains through different parameters involved in the process
Figure 5.4.7.1 shows hourly indoor temperatures for a typical summer week. It is observed that in the absence of a glazed balcony the temperatures on a freerunning mode are well within the comfort band but significantly more stable than that of the previous case. However, the whole idea is to have adaptive strategies and these balconies are designed for the user’s benefit, and the occupant can choose whether or not to open the balcony according to the changing outdoor conditions. Figure 5.4.7.2 shows the various heat losses and gains through different parameters involved in the process.
Taking into consideration the future climate change, it is observed that London will have wetter winters and hotter summers, in winter there is an increase in temperature by 20C. Analytical calliberations for the same were considered for a two bedroom unit as an example. However, it is also observed that during summers, overheating can be an issue that needs to be addressed through various design strategies which can help bring down the temperatures. Figures 5.5.1.1 and 5.5.1.2 show hourly indoor temperatures for the living room and bedroom respectively.
Taking into consideration the future climate change, it is observed that London will have wetter winters and hotter summers, in winter there is an increase in temperature by 20C. Analytical calliberations for the same were considered for a two bedroom unit as an example. However, it is also observed that during winters this increase plays in our favour and help in improving the heating loads by a significant amount. Figures 5.5.2.1 and 5.5.2.2 show hourly indoor temperatures for the living room and bedroom respectively.
Through the analysis of thermal comfort for a one bed room unit oriented northeast and south-west direction as depicted in Fig.5.6.1.6, it was evident that with addition of a glazed balcony, the performance of the unit was enhanced. Additionally, with the introduction of mechanical heating in a mixed mode, the performance is enhanced towards the comfortband. The performance was further analysed for indoor microclimate in the unit using the ladybug plug-in for grasshopper in the typical winter(1st- 7th March) and summer week (7th - 13th July) considered for the analysis. Fig 5.6.1.1 depicts the temperature around 9-12oC, which then changes to range between 12-18oC with the addition of the glazed balcony as depicted in Fig.5.6.1.2 as it creates a winter garden and helps capture of heat. A mixed mode comfort with addition of mechanical heating affects the unit and provides a operative temperature around 18-20oC as depicted in Fig.5.6.1.3 providing comfort to the occupants.
The summers provide an adaptive opportunity for the balcony glazing to be opened up based on user's requirements. Hence, on this basis, the operative temperature ranges in the comfort band from 20-24oC in either case as observed in fig 5.6.1.4 and fig 5.6.1.5.
Figure 5.6.1.1 Free-running Typical Winter Week Without Glazed Balcony (Source | Ladybug)
Figure 5.6.1.4 Free-running Typical Summer Week Without Glazed Balcony (Source | Ladybug)
Figure 5.6.1.2 Free-running Typical Winter Week With a Glazed Balcony (Source | Ladybug)
Figure 5.6.1.5 Free-running Typical Summer Week With a Glazed Balcony (Source | Ladybug)
Through the analysis of thermal comfort for a two bed room unit oriented northwest and south-east direction as depicted in Fig.5.6.2.6, it was evident that with addition of a glazed balcony, the performance of the unit was enhanced. Additionally, with the introduction of mechanical heating in a mixed mode, the performance is enhanced towards the comfortband. The performance was further analysed for indoor microclimate in the unit using the ladybug plug-in for grasshopper in the typical winter(1st- 7th March) and summer week (7th - 13th July) considered for the analysis. Fig 5.4.2.1 depicts the temperature around 9-12oC, which then changes to range between 12-18oC with the addition of the glazed balcony as depicted in Fig.5.6.2.2 as it creates a winter garden and helps capture of heat. A mixed mode comfort with addition of mechanical heating affects the unit and provides a operative temperature around 18-20oC as depicted in Fig.5.6.2.3 providing comfort to the occupants.
The summers provide an adaptive opportunity for the balcony glazing to be opened up based on user's requirements. Hence, on this basis, the operative temperature ranges in the comfort band from 20-24oC in either case as observed in fig 5.6.2.4 and fig 5.6.2.5.
Through the analysis of thermal comfort for a three bed room unit oriented north-west and south-east direction as depicted in Fig.5.6.3.6, it was evident that with addition of a glazed balcony, the performance of the unit was enhanced. Additionally, with the introduction of mechanical heating in a mixed mode, the performance is enhanced towards the comfortband. The performance was further analysed for indoor microclimate in the unit using the ladybug plug-in for grasshopper in the typical winter(1st- 7th March) and summer week (7th - 13th July) considered for the analysis. Fig 5.6.3.1 depicts the temperature around 9-12oC, which then changes to range between 12-18oC with the addition of the glazed balcony as depicted in Fig.5.6.3.2 as it creates a winter garden and helps capture of heat. A mixed mode comfort with addition of mechanical heating affects the unit and provides a operative temperature around 18-20oC as depicted in Fig.5.6.3.3 providing comfort to the occupants.
The summers provide an adaptive opportunity for the balcony glazing to be opened up based on user's requirements. Hence, on this basis, the operative temperature ranges in the comfort band from 20-24oC in either case as observed in fig 5.6.3.4 and fig 5.6.3.5.
The argument holds true in the case for the units that the performance is enhanced during the winters with the addition of a glazed balcony due to its effect as a winter garden helping in capturing heat. The summers provide an adaptive solution allowing the occupants to change as per the requirement. Hence, utilizing passive design techniques to enhance the building's performance.
Term 2 was indeed a very interesting and challenging experience for us. Taking into consideration the lessons from the previous term, and using these tools as a part of the design process, the team was able to make better design decisions. We started by analyzing the existing proposals and the context to get a better picture of our design in terms of orientation, morphology materials, connectivity, open spaces, etc. Our previous term tutorials in terms of analytical work helped us understand optimizing sustainable features as architects and integrating these strategies in our design.
After analyzing the site well, we started looking into different possibilities that could pan out by using computational tools. Designing various types of dwellings, taking into account the demographics and the occupancy schedule was one of the first steps. Taking the pandemic into account work from home spaces along with green open spaces for health and well-being were also proposed. Optimizing solar access without causing overheating during the summers through the orientation and other aspects was also detailed.
One of our main design features was the adaptive approach of retractable balconies for different times of the year. The idea was to make it user-friendly and make changes as needed. We aimed to achieve net-zero carbon building through a detailed study of various elements in terms of materiality, depths, and heights of the unit was also a part of the design process, creating experiential spaces for the users along with enhancing the performance of the building.
The opportunity to design the Battersea Church Road Development project provided me with a better insight into the complexity of sustainable environmental design and the role various elements comprising a space play in creating a thermally efficient and comfortable environment.
In several ways, this project was both intriguing and challenging. First, trying to achieve net-zero design acquainted me with the importance of environmental constraints and material properties in correlation to the design process. The balance between the two proved crucial to several design decisions throughout the project.
In addition, several simulations and computations like daylight analysis and thermal studies enabled me to understand the impact of different elements and solutions such as window to floor ratios, overhangs, and glazing properties on the layout. It was particularly helpful in developing different design strategies that could be valuable for various spaces in several conditions. Furthermore, throughout this project, I realized that it is not critical to use only sophisticated mechanisms, but even simple solutions and adaptive opportunities like opening windows could help achieve the required comfort levels. For example, in the case of the balconies, the use of glazed enclosures during winters to keep the apartments warm significantly impacted the thermal comfort while reducing energy consumption.
In general, these analyses and studies widened my knowledge about eco-conscious designs and the importance of thermal efficiency while laying the foundation for further investigations.
Term 2 project has allowed me to study in-depth design principles for sustainable environmental design, and the role of different elements composing a building in occupants' comfort has widened, and this term was an extension of term one in learning and gained more knowledge on design principles.
Firstly, I mainly concentrated on designing from the concept massing to floor plans and units plans with knowledge on sustainable design principles, and it was challenging to incorporate the basic sustainable design strategies. In addition, wind analysis is performed to understand the impact of building orientation and improve the occupant's comfort by minimizing the wind chills and further work on design strategies to improve the thermal comfort.
Secondly, a deeper analysis of existing studies helped me in the application of conservatories and balconies as a design feature. This feature had a significant impact on the thermal performance of the adjoining spaces, and the results helped to understand the spaces better. Design decisions were made based on the impact of several factors and was a continuous process.
In Conclusion, this term was a great learning curve to understand how architectural design and sustainability work together. It gave me a more profound knowledge of how typical spaces perform under different scenarios and loads. The project is designed through the sustainability lens, which is good learning to take away.
Working on a housing project like the one in term 2 has opened up many learning opportunities for me. The process of design has been an educational journey. Right from understanding the context and its needs to creating an experiential space, various architectural aspects came into play. One of the key factors was to understand who we are designing the space for and the functions required accordingly. This helped us get a vision of how the spaces would articulate as a whole. Moving to the computational tools that were taught to us during the first term, like studying the daylight or the wind patterns and optimizing them, we were able to induce these skills, which played a major role in enhancing the performance of the building in terms of orientation, the morphology, indoor thermal performance of the units as well as the microclimate of the surrounding area.
Analyzing the existing proposals along with the proposals done by the earlier batch helped in structuring the whole project. Visiting the site also helped with better visualizations in terms of how the building would come up. One of the challenges we faced was working on the net-zero carbon buildings which made us dive into the study of materials, the compactness of the units, etc at the very initial stage, which lead us to make certain designs decisions. The idea was to improve the environmental conditions of the building along with making a design statement. Knowing that these aims can be achieved, if well analyzed was one of the objectives I would take from this experience.
I would like to thank my teammates who worked and cooperated efficiently as a team to get the best outcome we could. It was interesting to collaborate and exchange various ideas and iterations that helped enhance the design and its performance.
The project provided the opportunity to understand the integration of environmental factors into architectural design. The perception of being able to think critically and use features of passive strategies for the design at the initial stages to dictate the design was intriguing. It was a very informative and challenging journey to align the design process with substantial data on the site context and previous proposals and analysis the optimum solutions through the computational tools learned previously during the course.
The aim, however, was to provide adequate comfort to the occupants keeping in mind passive strategies. Therefore, the study of all simulations required patience and intelligence for inter-relation. Providing an adequate amount of natural daylighting into space but at the same time, controlling solar gains and internal thermal comfort was a task to look into. The simulations for the proposed indoor spaces to understand comfort at a microclimate level provided an understanding of the need for iterations in the window sizes and properties, balcony glazing operability, blinds, and shutters for enhancing the performance in the individual spaces in the unit. The performance of outdoor communal spaces in the public Daylight performance in the unit was carried out to understand that the units receive adequate daylight. Looking in-depth at the carbon analysis, helped me understand the means by which materiality plays an important role in the creation of a net-zero module using a design meant for disassembly through the massive use of cross-laminated timber in the building.
One of the many struggles of a sustainable environment design is to be able to achieve a balance between user comfort and user needs. Ultimately, we have learned the basics of designing a practical and functional building that can help reduce energy consumption and carbon. Analytical and evaluation skills were strongly developed through this project which I further intend to utilize for all projects in the future.
Agarwal, Smiti, Eugene Leung, and Vasheena Mittal. 2021. “Term 2 Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II.” MSc/MArch Sustainable Environmental Design, Architectural Association.
“Azatlyk, Central Square of Naberezhnye Chelny / DROM.” ArchDaily, May 28, 2020. https://www.archdaily.com/921159/azatlyk-central-square-ofnaberezhnye-chelny-drom.
Baker, Nick, and Koen Steemers. Healthy Homes : Designing with Light and Air for Sustainability and Wellbeing. London: Riba Publishing, 2019.
Batmaz, Dila, Anushree Bhattad, and Tamara Boldireff. 2021. “Term 2 Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II.” MSc/MArch Sustainable Environmental Design, Architectural Association.
“Battersea Church Road, Somerset Estate, SW11.” Wandsworth Borough Council. Accessed March 18, 2022. https://www.wandsworth.gov. uk/housing/council-led-development/locations-for-our-buildingprogramme/battersea-church-road-somerset-estate/.
Betti, Giovanni, Federico Tartarini, and Christine Nguyen. “CBE Clima Tool.” Center for the Built Environment, University of California Berkeley. Accessed March 18, 2021. https://clima.cbe.berkeley.edu/.
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers. 2015. Environmental Design: CIBSE Guide A. London: Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers.
Chawla, Dev, Gabriella Dona, and Lucie Duchamp. 2021. “Term 2 Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II.” MSc/MArch Sustainable Environmental Design, Architectural Association.
City of London Corporation. “Thermal Comfort Guidelines for Developments in the City of London,” December 2020. Gethering, William, and Katie Puckett. Design for Climate Change. London: Riba, 2013.
Google. “Google Earth.” Accessed March 18, 2022. https://earth.google.com/ web/.
“Home.” California Environmental Literacy Initiative. Accessed March 18, 2022. https://ca-eli.org/.
“House 108 | Grieve Gillett Andersen Architects.” grieve-gillett-02. Accessed March 28, 2022. https://www.ggand.com.au/house-108.https://www. facebook.com/archellocom.
umphreys, Michael Alexander, Fergus Nicol, and Susan Roaf. 2016. Adaptive Thermal Comfort Foundations and Analysis. London: Routledge. https:// researchportal.hw.ac.uk/en/publications/adaptive-thermal-comfort-
foundations-and-analysis.
Mumovic, Dejan, and Mat Santamouris. 2021. A Handbook of Sustainable Building Design and Engineering: An Integrated Approach to Energy, Health and Operational Performance. London: Routledge.
“Néaucité Housing / Atelier Krauss Architecture.” ArchDaily, September 28, 2017. https://www.archdaily.com/880451/neaucite-housing-atelierkrauss-architecture.
“Penda Designs Sky Villas with Vertical Gardens for Hyderabad.” ArchDaily, June 24, 2016. https://www.archdaily.com/790207/penda-designs-sky-villaswith-vertical-gardens-for-hyderabad.
“Ruotutorppa Social Housing / Arkkitehdit Hannunkari & Mäkipaja Architects.” ArchDaily, February 23, 2011. https://www.archdaily.com/113043/ ruotutorppa-social-housing-arkkitehdit-hannunkari-makipaja-architects.
“Stadstuinen Rotterdam | KCAP | Archello.” Archello, 2022. https://archello. com/project/stadstuinen-rotterdam.
“The Number One School Playground Specialist.” Pentagon Play, n.d. https:// www.pentagonplay.co.uk/.WeWork. “Carioca Office Space.” WeWork. Accessed March 18, 2022. https://www.wework.com/buildings/ almirante-barroso-81--rio-de-janeiro.
Upama, Lamia Wali, and Jiaqi Zhang. 2021. “Term 2 Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II.” MSc/MArch Sustainable Environmental Design, Architectural Association.
Yannas, Simos. 1994. Solar Energy and Housing Design. London: Architectural Association
George, Clara Bagenal, ed. 2020. “LETI Embodied Carbon Primer.” https://www. leti.london/_files/ugd/252d09_8ceffcbcafdb43cf8a19ab9af5073b92. pdf.
“GreenSpec: Passive Solar Design: Siting and Orientation.” n.d. Www.greenspec. co.uk. https://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/solar-sitingorientation/.
Armstrong, John. 2008. CIBSE Concise Handbook. Edited by Ken Butcher. London: Chartered Inst. Of Building Services Engineers.
