Explore the Building Site Context
Site features and public spaces:
For this project, I chose the recommended project site – Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve. And the site location is shown in Figure 1, with the north and east sides face with trees, the south and west sides face with open space. This site location is relatively small but still large enough for my conceptual mass models. The advantage of this site is the potential great views of the lake without surrounding buildings, but the trees around the lake could block the lake views. As shown in Figure 2, there is a small upward slope towards the lake and I thought this would be great to take advantage of the small hillside.
Local climate conditions:
The solar analysis was presented in the other section of this report. The local climate was shown in Figure 3 by using the Climate Consultant. Jasper Ridge is in a natural preserve area in San Mateo County and the average temperature each month is below the comfort zone, thus, we should carefully design insulation performance to lower the energy required for heating. Figure 4 shows the possible options to maintain a comfortable temperature from 9 am to 9 pm per day and internal heat gain is the most important factor for the heating. Figure 5 shows the analysis for keeping a comfortable temperature the whole day, and it is necessary to implement heating for this case.
Figure 6 shows the wind data of jasper ridge, the wind from the west lasted the longest and have relatively fast winds, and we could potentially use the west wind for natural ventilation to reduce energy consumption.
Solar Analysis:
Conceptual Building Form 1:
Figures 7 and 8 show the solar potential of Mass Form 1. Mass form 1 has a gross floor area of about 30500 ft2. The roof area received the most solar energy, the south side also received a great amount of solar energy and the north side received the least solar energy. Mass form 1 has different building heights and the highest part is about 40 ft, which can bring a great lake view, but the rooftop area will be small, where the solar energy potential is highest, thus resulting in a long payback time (14.2 years).
Conceptual Building Form 2:
As shown in Figures 9 and 10, similar to the solar analysis of mass form 1, the top side received the most solar energy, and the north side received the least solar energy. The gross floor area of mass form 2 is 37775 ft2. Since mass form 2 is lower than mass form 1, the surface area is much larger, and it seems like the shape is also more efficient than the shape of mass form 1 to receive solar energy since the maximum energy received is greater than mass form 1 with all other settings remain the same. The payback time is 8.7 years for mass form 2.
EUI Comparisons
With keeping all default settings in Insight, the energy analysis of the two conceptual mass forms is given in Figures 11 and 12. Mass form 1 has a EUI of 58 kBtu /ft2 /yr and mass form 2 has a EUI of 52.4 kBtu / ft2 / yr.
Building Orientations:
The effects of building orientations are shown in Figures 13 and 14, the mass form 1 is most efficient when oriented 45 degrees and can reduce 0.1 kBtu / ft2 / yr; mass form 2 is most efficient when oriented 270 degrees and can reduce 0.17 kBtu / ft2 / yr. However, the reductions are relatively small and I will choose the orientation to bring the best lake view in this case.
In summary, building mass form 2 is more energy efficient than mass form 1 and I will choose mass form 2 for this project.
Architecture 2030:
The following analysis is for mass form 2. By comparing different scenarios in Insight, I found that to achieve the architecture 2030 goal, there are several important factors: the operating schedule, HVAC types, PV payback limit, and surface coverage. By changing the Operating schedule to 12/5 and selecting high efficient heat pump, the architecture 2030 goal could be achieved with EUI is 29.7 kBtu / ft2 / yr as shown in Figure 15.
Net Zero:
The net-zero goal could also be achieved by choosing a 12/5 operating time, a high-efficiency heat pump, 20 yr – 30 yr PV payback limit, and 75% surface coverage. The resulting EUI is -1.19 kBtu / ft2 / yr as shown in Figure 16.
