Design Journal Entry - Module 4

My chosen site is on campus and close to the Student Observatory (delineated by the yellow rectangle).

The proposed Exhibition Center has easy access to a road and a parking lot, so students can bike to the site very easily. The adjacent buildings include Artist’s Studio, Student Observatory, and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Science. It’s also close to Lake Lagunita and the Driving Range. The proposed Exhibition Center is a good place to go visit on the West side of the campus.

The building mass has a small base area but it’s intended for good views and a cozy and intimate atmosphere. I intend to create a connection to the outdoors so the narrow building forms keep users close to exterior walls.

This psychrometric chart has data from 9am to 9pm hourly indoor comfort level. The top comfort design strategies include “Internal heat gain”, “Passive solar direct gain low mass”, “sun shading of windows”, “natural ventilation cooling” and “fan-forced ventilation cooling”. So it’s important to have both heat and breeze going trough the window so I will keep in mind to add east-west windows that are critical for ventilation.

For alternative 1, The solar insolation analysis has predicted a lot of solar radiation, and the second floor’s rectangular structure can provide some shading for the cone-shaped structure. I am also planning to make green roof on the balcony area, and put on solar panels on the rooftops, which hopefully will decrease the solar radiation heat and compensate for the cooling electricity bills.

Alternative 2 has a larger rooftop than the base, where more solar power can be utilized. The right side (North) and the courtyard receives the least amount of sun.

For both massing alternatives, I assumed

The predicted energy use intensity (EUI) for each massing alternative given the same factor assumptions in Insight are:

Alternative 1:

Alternative 2:

With previous experience with buildings in the Bay Area, the Insight tool typically prefers slimmer buildings. In addition, it was no surprise to me that the Building Orientation factor tile in Insight did not differentiate much between the most energy-efficient alternative. My buildings are not too slim on any side.

For Alternative 1, I did not design for too much area for PV panels, so when I limited the PV surface coverage to below 60%, I got an EUI of 47.3, not achieving the ASHRAE standard. However I can adjust wall material, eastern wall WWR later. For Alternative 2, with a large roof top I think I want to utilize the PV potential to more than 60% and payback limit to more than 20years. Eventually it reached the Architecture 2030 goal.

Alternative 2 supports my goal the best. It is still underdevelopment but I have designed for a courtyard in the middle so the nature lives within the building too. What’s more, it can achieve the Architecture 2030 goal. I am planning to improve the shape of the sides more to make it slimmer and create building pads that has bike parking.