Yuvraj GuptaOverview of Proposals
Proposal 1
Proposal 2
Proposal 3
- Proposal 1 & Proposal 3:
- Proposal 2:
These proposals share similar footprints (approximately 3,870 m² of selected surface area) and consequently offer comparable solar and daylight performance. Their geometric simplicity reflects an intent to balance traditional spatial configurations with modern sustainability strategies.
This alternative expands the building’s surface area to 4,939 m², thereby increasing the available roof (or facade) area for solar panels. The design aims to capitalize on this extra area to boost renewable energy generation without compromising the quality of daylight in the occupied zones.
1. Solar Energy Analysis
- Proposal 1:
- Selected Surface Area: 3,870 m²
- Total Solar Energy: 5,950,000 kWh
- Estimated Electrical Output (60% coverage, 15% efficiency): 436,000 kWh
- Proposal 2:
- Selected Surface Area: 4,939 m²
- Total Solar Energy: 6,560,000 kWh
- Estimated Electrical Output: 477,000 kWh
- Proposal 3:
- Selected Surface Area: 3,868 m²
- Total Solar Energy: 5,930,000 kWh
- Estimated Electrical Output: 434,000 kWh
Proposal 2 leads in solar energy performance—with the highest total potential and annual electrical output—primarily due to its larger available surface area for panel placement. Although Proposals 1 and 3 have slightly higher average solar energy values per square meter, their overall energy outputs fall short compared to Proposal 2.
2. Daylight Potential Analysis
For each proposal, the daylight potential was evaluated over a large facade/area (ranging from approximately 23,800 to 26,300 m²). The light score distribution shows how much area falls into various ranges of daylight quality:
- Low-Light Zones (0–5 range):
- Proposal 1: 1,270 m²
- Proposal 2: 1,159 m²
- Proposal 3: 1,479 m²
- Higher-Scoring Zones (27 m² and above):
All three proposals show substantial portions of the envelope in the upper ranges, with Proposal 2 and Proposal 3 offering very similar areas in these bands.
While Proposal 1 covers the largest total area, Proposal 2 has a slight edge in that it minimizes the poorly lit (0–5) category. This suggests that its design effectively reduces zones with insufficient natural
3. Sun Hours Analysis (June 21)
The sun hours analysis, which assesses how much time surfaces receive sunlight throughout the day, shows:
- High Sun Exposure (8–9+ hours):
- Proposal 1: 1,109 m²
- Proposal 2: 1,192 m²
- Proposal 3: 1,651 m²
- Mid-Range Categories (e.g., 3–5 hours):
The distributions across proposals are similar, with only minor variations.
Proposal 3 exhibits the best performance in the highest sun-exposure category. However, despite its strong sun hours in this range, its overall solar panel output is lower due to a smaller panel placement area. Proposal 2 still maintains competitive sun exposure overall, while delivering superior energy generation.
Side-by-Side Comparison Summary
- Solar Energy: Proposal 2 clearly outperforms the others in total electrical output.
- Daylight Potential: Proposal 2 minimizes low-light areas, ensuring more consistently well-lit surfaces.
- Sun Hours: Although Proposal 3 shows an advantage in the highest exposure range, Proposal 2’s overall performance remains strong and well-balanced.
Recommendation for the Best Design Option
After reviewing the analyses, Proposal 2 is the best design option. Its larger surface area yields the highest potential for on-site renewable energy generation (with an estimated 477,000 kWh annual output) without sacrificing daylight quality. As I move forward, I would like to integrate some architectural aspects of Proposal 1 and Proposal 3 into it.
While Proposal 3’s enhanced sun hours in certain intervals are attractive, the overall benefits of Proposal 2—in terms of renewable energy production and balanced daylight distribution—make it the most compelling choice to advance into further design development.
Moving forward, I plan to refine Proposal 2 by:
- Optimizing the solar panel layout: Fine-tuning the panel placement to further boost renewable energy yield.
- Enhancing daylight performance: Investigating additional shading or window optimization strategies to ensure all interior spaces receive adequate light.
- Integrating Passive Strategies: Combining these efforts with enhanced natural ventilation and thermal mass strategies to further reduce mechanical energy needs.
This integrated approach not only honors the cultural inspirations from earlier modules (courtyards, jali screens, and stepwell-inspired forms) but also meets the sustainability goals set forth in the project brief.